Ars chatted with some of the main actors behind the new plug that supports USB 3.1.

Share this story

SAN FRANCISCO—Last week, Ars met up with several representatives of the non-profit USB Implementer's Forum (USB-IF) to check out some of the first USB Type-C connectors off the assembly lines. The Type-C specification was announced in December and finalized in August, and it's set to bring a number of improvements to its predecessors, in addition to being smaller than the Type-A USB plugs we're familiar with today.

Considering how many USB Type-A devices are still being actively built out there (over 4 billion USB-compatible products are made each year), this smaller, reversible connector represents a significant jump. Jeff Ravencraft, president and COO of USB-IF, told Ars that USB-IF wanted a connector that worked equally well for large and small devices. “We also understand that yeah the consumer maybe has some trouble with putting in that cable connector,” he added of the Type-C's new-found ability to be plugged in right-side up or upside down, like Apple's Lightning connector.

The new Type-C connector is also slightly bigger than its proprietary cousin, with Type-C sized at approximately 8.4mm by 2.6mm and Lightning coming in at 7.7 mm by 1.7 mm. Unlike the reversible Lightning, but similar to USB connectors before it, the USB Type-C connector has a mid-plate inside the receptacle that the plug surrounds when it's inserted.

Enlarge/ A clear look at the inside of the receptacle as defined by the USB Type-C specification released in August.

USB-IF

Enlarge/ One of the first USB 3.1 Type-C cables, plugs, and receptacles off the assembly line.

Megan Geuss

What it can do

The new so-called “SuperSpeed” USB 3.1 standard will deliver a maximum 10Gbps when transferring data, which is twice the speed promised in USB 3.0, but not nearly as fast as the 20Gbps promised by Thunderbolt 2, which just started showing up late last year. Still, Ravencraft said that USB 3.1 would be capable of driving 4K displays and would be able to deliver data and power simultaneously.

Further Reading

On the power-side, USB-IF announced its USB Power Delivery v2.0 spec last week. The new connector will continue to deliver 100W of power, but it will allow the voltage, current, and direction of the power flow to be negotiated so that the source of power delivery can be switched without the need to change the direction of the cable. That means a phone could provide power to a tablet and vice versa.

USB 3.1 Type-C connectors will also be able to support alternate modes (PDF) with a USB Billboard Device Class specification, which defines how devices connected by USB should talk if an alternate mode is enabled. Individual manufacturers or standards organizations will be able to develop their own alternate modes after obtaining a standard or vendor ID (SVID) from USB-IF. “One example of an Alternate Mode is PCIe,” a spokesperson from USB-IF told Ars. “In a docking station, for example, a device would use its USB Type-C connector to make a connection when placed in a cradle dock. If the manufacturer has enabled a PCIe Alternate Mode on the USB Type-C connector, then the user could use PCIe to connect additional dock functions, such as a network controller.”

With alternate modes, USB-IF members told Ars that the organization is looking for ways to signal easily to consumers what an alternate-mode-enabled device does. “We want the consumer to very easily look at the port and know what they’re getting,” Ravencraft told Ars.

The new USB 3.1 Type-C connectors are supposed to be durable for 10,000 cycles, and USB-IF says it has improved electromagnetic interference (EMI) and radio-frequency interference (RFI) mitigation features in the specifications. Finally, UBS-IF also showed Ars a demo of wireless connectivity over USB, something that's been long in the making but has only just now become a reality. That function is "designed to allow wireless devices and docking stations to communicate over the USB protocol, without the need for a physical USB connection."

Way of the future

One problem new standards often face is that it's hard to spur widespread adoption of the new standard if the old standard works okay. But USB's ubiquity in the market gives Type-C connectors a leg up to becoming integrated into the plug pantheon. USB-IF itself is made up of many engineers whose day jobs are at big tech companies like Intel, Microsoft, Broadcom, Hewlett-Packard, Nokia, Nvidia, NXP, and Texas Instruments, to name a few, so at least a handful of employees at those companies have an impetus to push Type-C.

Further Reading

At our meeting last week, Ravencraft and his associates, Brad Saunders, a USB 3.0 Promoter Group Chairman, and Rahman Ismail, the USB-IF CTO, (both of whom work for Intel by day) told Ars that a number of device manufacturers are preparing to launch products in early 2015 that will have USB 3.1 Type-C plugs. “Some people are trying to get things out before the end of the year, but I can’t say who,” Saunders told Ars. “Clearly people who’ve been working on the spec for over a year” would be good to bet on, he added.

So it all seems great right? New products will adopt the new standard, and as older devices get retired, USB 2.0 will go the way of the VGA cable. Still, Ars had to ask if there were trade-offs in building the Type-C connector—it's faster, it does more things, but usually there are challenges, or something has to give, to make the improvement happen. Saunders fielded that question: he said that mobile device manufacturers involved with developing the spec originally pushed for something smaller, like the micro USB, but USB-IF as a whole wanted a connector that could power a huge display and a tiny phone equally well. “There weren’t a lot [of trade-offs] originally. The target for the spec was to make it as small as the micro USB, but in the end we made it as small as possible, and we’re still about 10-15 percent away from that goal,” he said.

Enlarge/ The new Type-C connector is small, but not as small as micro USB. It makes up for that extra size in power, though.

Megan Geuss

Nevertheless, “The OEMs understood the value of the performance and the improvement in rigidity and durability,” Saunders added.

The Type-C's famed reversibility is, in itself, a trade-off, too, because without reversibility, the plug could have been even smaller. “A reversible connector takes more gates, more silicon to do it, and when you bring a new technology [to the assembly line] if you have to design a bunch of new silicon, that’s pretty significant. But in the long run the user will get a better experience,” Saunders told Ars.

Saunders, Ravencraft, and Ismail were quick to point out that USB-IF still supports its earlier USB versions. “I think the neat thing is that the consumer has never really lost out on their investment on any USB product,” Ravencraft said. “People love USB because it just works. It's a safe investment and it works with everything.”

“We make the standards available and then it's really up to the market and what the market's going to bear,” Ravencraft told Ars. Saunders chimed in, “the Type-C connector is the closest we’ve come to obsoleting technology. But in the transition you’ll still see Type-C to Type-A connectors.”

With the announcement of the Type-C connector, USB-IF also acknowledged that the future changes quickly, and USB 3.1 Type-C may look like a dinosaur in due time. With respect to that problem, the Implimenter's Forum said that it designed the Type-C connector with “future scalability” in mind. “The USB Type-C receptacle, plug, and cable designs are intended to support those future enhancements without modification,” a spokesperson for USB-IF told Ars. “As such, consideration was given to frequency scaling performance, pin-out arrangement, and the configuration mechanisms when developing this solution.”

”The definition of future USB performance enhancements is not in the scope of this specification but will be provided in future releases,” the spokesperson added.

I like it, though I worry that consumers will have difficulty remembering which of their little slots want a Type-C and which of them want a Micro B. USB is so ubiquitous that the strongest resistance is likely to come from itself.

Why must USB wires be female? Isn't female in the wire structurally weaker? The single good thing about Lightning was the male interface.

Whatever. I'm not an engineer. I'm just someone who gets annoyed that the bits of his i/o that are most integrated into his desktop also seem to be the most frangible design. I'm sure there are any number of reasons why this view is naive.

Why must USB wires be female? Isn't female in the wire structurally weaker? The single good thing about Lightning was the male interface.

Whatever. I'm not an engineer. I'm just someone who gets annoyed that the bits of his i/o that are most integrated into his desktop also seem to be the most frangible design. I'm sure there are any number of reasons why this view is naive.

I'm pretty sure that at least one of the reasons why it's that way is so that it's easier to put the spring clips that keep the connector, well, connected on the wire rather than the socket. That way when the spring wears out, you replace a $3 wire, instead of a much more expensive socket that you also have to partially disassemble your device to install.

Why must USB wires be female? Isn't female in the wire structurally weaker? The single good thing about Lightning was the male interface.

Whatever. I'm not an engineer. I'm just someone who gets annoyed that the bits of his i/o that are most integrated into his desktop also seem to be the most frangible design. I'm sure there are any number of reasons why this view is naive.

I'm pretty sure that at least one of the reasons why it's that way is so that it's easier to put the spring clips that keep the connector, well, connected on the wire rather than the socket. That way when the spring wears out, you replace a $3 wire, instead of a much more expensive socket that you also have to partially disassemble your device to install.

I welcome the improvements (of our new Type-C overlord), but they created more work by trying to solve the wrong problem, that people couldn't figure out which way to plug the damn thing in! The solution isn't to make it reversible, it's to make it clear which way to orient the connector. If their designers weren't suffering from groupthink, they might have noticed that practically every standard before USB managed to mitigate the problem without making it reversible.

I love using my lightning connector simply because I don't have to think about it at all. In the dark, I can plug my phone in on my nightstand without issue. It *is* a problem that needed to be solved, and I'm happy it has been.

I welcome the improvements (of our new Type-C overlord), but they created more work by trying to solve the wrong problem, that people couldn't figure out which way to plug the damn thing in! The solution isn't to make it reversible, it's to make it clear which way to orient the connector. If their designers weren't suffering from groupthink, they might have noticed that practically every standard before USB managed to mitigate the problem without making it reversible.

I welcome the improvements (of our new Type-C overlord), but they created more work by trying to solve the wrong problem, that people couldn't figure out which way to plug the damn thing in! The solution isn't to make it reversible, it's to make it clear which way to orient the connector. If their designers weren't suffering from groupthink, they might have noticed that practically every standard before USB managed to mitigate the problem without making it reversible.

Current usb cables are marked with the usb logo for orientation--that you don't know this is proof of how effective this method is.

Also,(almost) every standard before had a trapezoid shape to the port and was literally impossible to force, but parallel is balls slow, and no one wants a .25"x.75" nine pin serial port on their phone

Why must USB wires be female? Isn't female in the wire structurally weaker? The single good thing about Lightning was the male interface.

Whatever. I'm not an engineer. I'm just someone who gets annoyed that the bits of his i/o that are most integrated into his desktop also seem to be the most frangible design. I'm sure there are any number of reasons why this view is naive.

I'm pretty sure that at least one of the reasons why it's that way is so that it's easier to put the spring clips that keep the connector, well, connected on the wire rather than the socket. That way when the spring wears out, you replace a $3 wire, instead of a much more expensive socket that you also have to partially disassemble your device to install.

This is correct! This was one of main motivations behind moving from mini-usb to micro-usb a few years ago. They moved the springs from the device to the cable. Now, the weakest point of failure is in the cable, so once it wears it, you only have to replace your cable instead of getting your phone repaired.

I welcome the improvements (of our new Type-C overlord), but they created more work by trying to solve the wrong problem, that people couldn't figure out which way to plug the damn thing in! The solution isn't to make it reversible, it's to make it clear which way to orient the connector. If their designers weren't suffering from groupthink, they might have noticed that practically every standard before USB managed to mitigate the problem without making it reversible.

It should be clear on most devices: the USB logo should be upwards.

Which way is "up" when the USB slot is vertically oriented? Or the manufacturer installed it upside down? Or the cable has no markings? Or, as someone mentioned earlier, you're working by feel? Or you're in a hurry?

I welcome the improvements (of our new Type-C overlord), but they created more work by trying to solve the wrong problem, that people couldn't figure out which way to plug the damn thing in! The solution isn't to make it reversible, it's to make it clear which way to orient the connector. If their designers weren't suffering from groupthink, they might have noticed that practically every standard before USB managed to mitigate the problem without making it reversible.

Current usb cables are marked with the usb logo for orientation--that you don't know this is proof of how effective this method is.

Also,(almost) every standard before had a trapezoid shape to the port and was literally impossible to force, but parallel is balls slow, and no one wants a .25"x.75" nine pin serial port on their phone

Edit: ninja'd by exscape

Yes, I do know that, but it isn't so obvious when you have to reach behind a system where you can't see the connections. Besides, If it was a non-issue, then why did they invest so much effort in making the connector reversible?

EDIT: And as for the other connections, it's the shape, not the size that's important. You could make a trapezoid connection small enough to fit a phone, it would just use something other than pins.

Why must USB wires be female? Isn't female in the wire structurally weaker? The single good thing about Lightning was the male interface.

Whatever. I'm not an engineer. I'm just someone who gets annoyed that the bits of his i/o that are most integrated into his desktop also seem to be the most frangible design. I'm sure there are any number of reasons why this view is naive.

I'm pretty sure that at least one of the reasons why it's that way is so that it's easier to put the spring clips that keep the connector, well, connected on the wire rather than the socket. That way when the spring wears out, you replace a $3 wire, instead of a much more expensive socket that you also have to partially disassemble your device to install.

This is correct! This was one of main motivations behind moving from mini-usb to micro-usb a few years ago. They moved the springs from the device to the cable. Now, the weakest point of failure is in the cable, so once it wears it, you only have to replace your cable instead of getting your phone repaired.

The weakest point of failure to me seem to be the male connector inside of the plug. And FWIW I've never heard of anyone having to replace the spring clips on an apple (or any other) device.

I welcome the improvements (of our new Type-C overlord), but they created more work by trying to solve the wrong problem, that people couldn't figure out which way to plug the damn thing in! The solution isn't to make it reversible, it's to make it clear which way to orient the connector. If their designers weren't suffering from groupthink, they might have noticed that practically every standard before USB managed to mitigate the problem without making it reversible.

Current usb cables are marked with the usb logo for orientation--that you don't know this is proof of how effective this method is.

Also,(almost) every standard before had a trapezoid shape to the port and was literally impossible to force, but parallel is balls slow, and no one wants a .25"x.75" nine pin serial port on their phone

Edit: ninja'd by exscape

Yes, I do know that, but it isn't so obvious when you have to reach behind a system where you can't see the connections. Besides, If it was a non-issue, then why did they invest so much effort in making the connector reversible?

I think you're misunderstanding the response. He isn't saying it's a non-issue. In fact, he's arguing that it was an issue and that reversibility solved a problem. *You* are the one arguing that reversibility doesn't matter.

How exactly do you propose that they make it "obvious" how to orient the connector when you can't see the plug or receptacle, btw?

I welcome the improvements (of our new Type-C overlord), but they created more work by trying to solve the wrong problem, that people couldn't figure out which way to plug the damn thing in! The solution isn't to make it reversible, it's to make it clear which way to orient the connector. If their designers weren't suffering from groupthink, they might have noticed that practically every standard before USB managed to mitigate the problem without making it reversible.

Current usb cables are marked with the usb logo for orientation--that you don't know this is proof of how effective this method is.

Also,(almost) every standard before had a trapezoid shape to the port and was literally impossible to force, but parallel is balls slow, and no one wants a .25"x.75" nine pin serial port on their phone

Edit: ninja'd by exscape

Yes, I do know that, but it isn't so obvious when you have to reach behind a system where you can't see the connections. Besides, If it was a non-issue, then why did they invest so much effort in making the connector reversible?

I think you're misunderstanding the response. He isn't saying it's a non-issue. In fact, he's arguing that it was an issue and that reversibility solved a problem. *You* are the one arguing that reversibility didn't matter.

Then you misunderstood my post. I never said that reversibility didn't address the issue, I merely pointed out that there were other solutions that didn't require so much effort to design.

I welcome the improvements (of our new Type-C overlord), but they created more work by trying to solve the wrong problem, that people couldn't figure out which way to plug the damn thing in! The solution isn't to make it reversible, it's to make it clear which way to orient the connector. If their designers weren't suffering from groupthink, they might have noticed that practically every standard before USB managed to mitigate the problem without making it reversible.

Current usb cables are marked with the usb logo for orientation--that you don't know this is proof of how effective this method is.

Also,(almost) every standard before had a trapezoid shape to the port and was literally impossible to force, but parallel is balls slow, and no one wants a .25"x.75" nine pin serial port on their phone

Edit: ninja'd by exscape

Yes, I do know that, but it isn't so obvious when you have to reach behind a system where you can't see the connections. Besides, If it was a non-issue, then why did they invest so much effort in making the connector reversible?

I think you're misunderstanding the response. He isn't saying it's a non-issue. In fact, he's arguing that it was an issue and that reversibility solved a problem. *You* are the one arguing that reversibility didn't matter.

Then you misunderstood my post. I never said that reversibility didn't address the issue, I merely pointed out that there were other solutions that didn't require so much effort to design.

Point me to any non-reversable design and I will gladly demonstrate how it'll suffer from "fail-flip-fail-flip-success".

How exactly do you propose that they make it "obvious" how to orient the connector when you can't see the plug or receptacle, btw?

Most connectors have a clear and standard orientation which you can use to fit the plug, even when blindly reaching behind a system. USB, however, used a flat rectangle or a square. Other connections such as PS/2, which has a round connection, manged to mitigate it by making one side of the plug flat. Other DIN style connections, such as S-Video, were a horrible PITA!

I've been doing this for years. Most connections didn't have has much trouble as USB. Its only saving grace is the fact that the seam in the metal of the connector is on the bottom. (Not all plugs had a USB logo on the top).

Is it me or does 100W seem like overkill? I know they probably tried to overshoot a little as 5W has been a limiting factor for USB for sooo long but still. 100W is kinda over the top.

Other than the tower on my desktop I can't think of one computing device I have with a power supply over 45W which is my laptop. If you can power a ultrabook class notebook from a USB cable I think you have cleared the bar. And thanx to the "mobile revolution" power draw seems to be going down not up.

How exactly do you propose that they make it "obvious" how to orient the connector when you can't see the plug or receptacle, btw?

Most connectors have a clear and standard orientation which you can use to fit the plug, even when blindly reaching behind a system. USB, however, used a flat rectangle or a square. Other connections such as PS/2, which has a round connection, manged to mitigate it by making one side of the plug flat. Other DIN style connections, such as S-Video, were a horrible PITA!

I've been doing this for years. Most connections didn't have has much trouble as USB. Its only saving grace is the fact that the seam in the metal of the connector is on the bottom. (Not all plugs had a USB logo on the top).

I welcome the improvements (of our new Type-C overlord), but they created more work by trying to solve the wrong problem, that people couldn't figure out which way to plug the damn thing in! The solution isn't to make it reversible, it's to make it clear which way to orient the connector. If their designers weren't suffering from groupthink, they might have noticed that practically every standard before USB managed to mitigate the problem without making it reversible.

Current usb cables are marked with the usb logo for orientation--that you don't know this is proof of how effective this method is.

Also,(almost) every standard before had a trapezoid shape to the port and was literally impossible to force, but parallel is balls slow, and no one wants a .25"x.75" nine pin serial port on their phone

Edit: ninja'd by exscape

Yes, I do know that, but it isn't so obvious when you have to reach behind a system where you can't see the connections. Besides, If it was a non-issue, then why did they invest so much effort in making the connector reversible?

EDIT: And as for the other connections, it's the shape, not the size that's important. You could make a trapezoid connection small enough to fit a phone, it would just use something other than pins.

You mean like both Mini and Micro? Which still have the orientation problem (although not as bad as standard USB)?

Is it me or does 100W seem like overkill? I know they probably tried to overshoot a little as 5W has been a limiting factor for USB for sooo long but still. 100W is kinda over the top.

Other than the tower on my desktop I can't think of one computing device I have with a power supply over 45W which is my laptop. If you can power a ultrabook class notebook from a USB cable I think you have cleared the bar. And thanx to the "mobile revolution" power draw seems to be going down not up.

I think it has more to do with peak load than continuous power, i.e. this is good for fast charging.

How exactly do you propose that they make it "obvious" how to orient the connector when you can't see the plug or receptacle, btw?

Most connectors have a clear and standard orientation which you can use to fit the plug, even when blindly reaching behind a system. USB, however, used a flat rectangle or a square. Other connections such as PS/2, which has a round connection, manged to mitigate it by making one side of the plug flat. Other DIN style connections, such as S-Video, were a horrible PITA!

I've been doing this for years. Most connections didn't have has much trouble as USB. Its only saving grace is the fact that the seam in the metal of the connector is on the bottom. (Not all plugs had a USB logo on the top).

Mini USB-A, Mini USB-B, and Micro-USB B are all trapezoidal-esque.

Yes, and I rarely have any problem with those. They're mostly used on devices. If you can't see which way the connection is oriented, then it's probably too dark to find it to plug anything in. Glow in the dark connections would actually be nice.

I know I'm just being a curmudgeon here, but given USB's prior history of incompatibility and short-sighted mechanical designs, I give this three years before they come up with a design change that forks the cable/connecter functionality. It's like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown...